|
On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about.
What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi.
Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe?
High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out.
Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot.
|
Zurich15245 Posts
On November 15 2012 00:13 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 23:33 zatic wrote:On November 14 2012 23:19 Rassy wrote:On November 14 2012 23:05 esperanto wrote:On November 14 2012 21:30 pellejohnson wrote: Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side There are in fact violent left-wing extremists but the point is, their violence (at least thats the case in germany) is pointed against materialistic goods (luxury cars...) or the government (attacks on policemen during riots). Not a single person died because of this in the last 20 years in germany. (Not that I want to defend this, just to put it in perspective) On the other hand we have 149 cases of racist motivated murder in germany since 1990. 10 of wich were carefully planed and executed by a terrorist group who calls themselves NSU and even made a video about it. Are you sure this is true and not a single person died from left wing extremist violence? I do vaguely remember the bader meinhoff gruppe and the Raf (rotte armee fraction, the succesor of the Bader meinhoff gruppe) and i also vaguely remember that they killed at least one industrial leader in germany. They did yes, not in the past 20 years though. Which is in stark contrast to the ~ 150 deaths attributed to extreme right ideology over the same time. Which is what esperanto was saying. Even before the body count for the entire RAF is 34, many of which were RAF themselves. The now infamous NSU killed 10 people just over the past 10 years. Germany has 80 million inhabitants and 2.5 rightwing murders every year and yet you speak of rightwing extremism like it would be everywhere and omnipresent. Your argumentation is totally onesided, misinforming and build up on fearmongering on fox news level. I am sorry?
Here is my first post in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=16883057
|
On November 15 2012 00:29 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 00:13 AngryMag wrote:On November 14 2012 23:33 zatic wrote:On November 14 2012 23:19 Rassy wrote:On November 14 2012 23:05 esperanto wrote:On November 14 2012 21:30 pellejohnson wrote: Wow this again? I never understood why people always love left wing extremists with all their violence and destruction while hating on right wing extremists who pretty much never case any problem.
TBH OP I don't give a shit about these neo naziz, I bet they are completely harmless however I do am afraid of all the love for left wing extremist group who take it on themselves to hurt everyone that is to the right side There are in fact violent left-wing extremists but the point is, their violence (at least thats the case in germany) is pointed against materialistic goods (luxury cars...) or the government (attacks on policemen during riots). Not a single person died because of this in the last 20 years in germany. (Not that I want to defend this, just to put it in perspective) On the other hand we have 149 cases of racist motivated murder in germany since 1990. 10 of wich were carefully planed and executed by a terrorist group who calls themselves NSU and even made a video about it. Are you sure this is true and not a single person died from left wing extremist violence? I do vaguely remember the bader meinhoff gruppe and the Raf (rotte armee fraction, the succesor of the Bader meinhoff gruppe) and i also vaguely remember that they killed at least one industrial leader in germany. They did yes, not in the past 20 years though. Which is in stark contrast to the ~ 150 deaths attributed to extreme right ideology over the same time. Which is what esperanto was saying. Even before the body count for the entire RAF is 34, many of which were RAF themselves. The now infamous NSU killed 10 people just over the past 10 years. Germany has 80 million inhabitants and 2.5 rightwing murders every year and yet you speak of rightwing extremism like it would be everywhere and omnipresent. Your argumentation is totally onesided, misinforming and build up on fearmongering on fox news level. I am sorry? Here is my first post in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=16883057
Sorry, I did not remember this post, got the wrong impression over the last few pages. But to be fair I edited my last post
|
Im 24 now and lived in Germany from age 4-6, I remember milking cows, awesome trains, sick chocolate and people calling me and my mum african dogs (I'm half Thai). Before turning 10 I lived in 8 different countries, 4 of them in Europe and Germany was not the worst racial hatred I experienced, heck we have a spokesperson for asian hatred that gets too much face time on TV for my liking in Australia which is supposedly a multicultural haven. Morons are everywhere and this fucken racial bigotry needs to end, it makes no sense. Will it take an alien invasion for humanity to band together and realise we are all human like some sci-fi movie? If so we probably deserved to be wiped out by said Extraterrestrials.
|
On November 15 2012 00:24 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about. What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi. Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe? High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out. Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot.
The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance.
Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe.
|
On November 14 2012 13:26 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Well, I can't speak for everyone, but. All I ever hear about with nazis is how terrible this and that are, I feel like I've only ever heard one side of the argument. It's not too dissimilar with things like the twin towers and the Iraq war. I really want to hear the perspective of the people being ostracised sometimes, especially with nazi's. -Out of the loop-
Watch "Der Untergang" ("Downfall").
|
On November 15 2012 01:24 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 00:24 Bahamut1337 wrote:On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about. What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi. Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe? High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out. Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot. The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance. Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe.
So, you are telling me that failure to integrate is caused by socioeconomic factors and not cultural ones? How about imams and Islamic groups who advocate non-integration and wish to live separately from the non-Islamic population. Or the establishing of Islamic courts outside national law? Do these things not counteract integration? Are these socioeconomic factors or cultural?
|
On November 15 2012 01:24 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 00:24 Bahamut1337 wrote:On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about. What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi. Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe? High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out. Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot. The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance. Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe.
If that was true, why don't we have similar problems with immigrants from Poland, Japan or France? I think culture contributes greatly to the problem even though socioeconomic background is the trigger. The problem is not their culture itself (or their 'race' or whatever you want to use as 'group-marker') but the fact that the welfare state is counterproductive for assimilation. You just don't need to work to get a flat, a Tv, booze, internet etc. So why should these people bother? Also I think (not entirely sure) it's common knowledge that multiculturalism has failed at least on an economic scale. I think someone bothered to calculate the numbers for Norway oder Denmark somewhere? You would not be allowed to do that in Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that it was 'a bad idea' from the beginning.
|
You are allowed to calculate anything you want in Germany. Pretty much the only things you are not allowed to do in regards to free speech is using symbols of organisations that are anticonstitutional, planning to overthrow the constitution, and denying the holocaust happened. (Of course there is stuff like slander too, but that is not the point here)
|
On November 15 2012 02:27 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 01:24 Talin wrote:On November 15 2012 00:24 Bahamut1337 wrote:On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about. What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi. Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe? High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out. Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot. The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance. Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe. If that was true, why don't we have similar problems with immigrants from Poland, Japan or France? I think culture contributes greatly to the problem even though socioeconomic background is the trigger. The problem is not their culture itself (or their 'race' or whatever you want to use as 'group-marker') but the fact that the welfare state is counterproductive for assimilation. You just don't need to work to get a flat, a Tv, booze, internet etc. So why should these people bother? Also I think (not entirely sure) it's common knowledge that multiculturalism has failed at least on an economic scale. I think someone bothered to calculate the numbers for Norway oder Denmark somewhere? You would not be allowed to do that in Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that it was 'a bad idea' from the beginning.
Ironically, many Asian countries have very strict immigration controls and are very homogeneous. I often wonder why the ire isn't directed toward their racist ways, also? /shrug
The problem as you identified isn't multi-culturalism per se, but the Welfare State. If you observe many millions of poor people flooding into your countries and contributing little while taking much, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the cause and effect relationship that the natives or indigenous population won't generally take a strong liking to this sort of behavior.
Open borders and State Welfare do not mix. I am an advocate for open borders, and no Welfare, which worked just fine for America for over a hundred years. Social Democrats are a pox - ruin, social strife, and chaos always follow in their path. The surest way to destroy a country is for the population to vote themselves the public treasury and their fellow neighbors property, and then in the same breath open the doors to the world for them to come in and enjoy in the pillaging. A successful, stable, and sustainable country it doth not make.
|
The posts from Americans about ethnic Germans being genetically coded for xenophobic violence and expansionist action are as ironic as they are misguided. The prevailing pseudo-genetics that Nazi Germany was such a hot bed for have lomg simce been scientifically discredited.
Lets say, however, for the sake of argument, that ethnic Germans do display militaristic and xenophobic tendencies due to genetics. What do we do about the tens of millions of American Germans? As the single largest American ethnic group by a large margin, ethnic Germans in the US should pose a huge threat to world stability. Should America be disarmed? After all, we can see what mad American German warmongers like Ike Eisenhower have done...
|
On November 15 2012 02:27 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 01:24 Talin wrote:On November 15 2012 00:24 Bahamut1337 wrote:On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about. What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi. Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe? High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out. Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot. The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance. Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe. If that was true, why don't we have similar problems with immigrants from Poland, Japan or France? I think culture contributes greatly to the problem even though socioeconomic background is the trigger. The problem is not their culture itself (or their 'race' or whatever you want to use as 'group-marker') but the fact that the welfare state is counterproductive for assimilation. You just don't need to work to get a flat, a Tv, booze, internet etc. So why should these people bother? Also I think (not entirely sure) it's common knowledge that multiculturalism has failed at least on an economic scale. I think someone bothered to calculate the numbers for Norway oder Denmark somewhere? You would not be allowed to do that in Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that it was 'a bad idea' from the beginning.
I'm pretty sure Polish or Lithuanian immigrants aren't looked upon too favorably in the UK for example.
When it comes to Middle Eastern countries, I think a distinction needs to be made between how they've been governed over the last century or so, and what their traditional identity and culture is.
Moreover, while many people choose to come to Europe to pursue material gain and improve their quality of life, many (if not as many) also come to Europe to escape from the oppressive laws and radical Islamism at home, and they're much less likely to follow the same behavior patterns as the former group and much more likely to contribute to the society.
Solving the issue of immigration involves finding a way of accepting less (or none) of the former, and more of the latter, not lumping all of them in one, undesirable group because of where they come from or what their name sounds like.
|
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based.
Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically".
The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well.
Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries.
But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age.
Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that.
|
On November 15 2012 03:08 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 02:27 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 01:24 Talin wrote:On November 15 2012 00:24 Bahamut1337 wrote:On November 13 2012 00:20 Rannasha wrote: Far-right xenophobic populism has been on the rise this past decade all across Europe. Germany is no exception in the matter, though they may have a different view on things due to their history.
I do feel that in the current day and age, with global communication accessible to anyone in developed countries, it would be very hard for a Nazi-like party to gain total control over a country like they did in Germany in the 1930's. Nevertheless, it's something to be wary about. What I find funny is when someone points out the downright failed state of the multicultural society of European nations you are suddenly a xenophobe populist and a nazi. Is it wrong to point out that 3rd world immigrants out of africa and the Middle East / North Africa have failed to bring any contribution to Europe? High wellfare abuse, high crime, low employment, no integration yet when a sane person points this out he is a bigot / racist / nazi. Immigrants have brought the wellfare state of the 70's to the brink of collapse but better not point this out. Amount of nazi's in europe? Near zero I can imagine, amount of people sick of a failed multicultural state ? a lot. The thing is that immigration and other social issues you mentioned have next to nothing to do with culture, and it's a fallacy to use those assumptions as arguments to reject the idea of multiculturalism and cultural acceptance. Most immigrants you describe aren't like that because of their cultural background, they're like that mostly because of their (or their parents') socioeconomic background. Hence blaming it on multiculturalism and identifying people as problematic based on their cultural background does make one a bit of a xenophobe. If that was true, why don't we have similar problems with immigrants from Poland, Japan or France? I think culture contributes greatly to the problem even though socioeconomic background is the trigger. The problem is not their culture itself (or their 'race' or whatever you want to use as 'group-marker') but the fact that the welfare state is counterproductive for assimilation. You just don't need to work to get a flat, a Tv, booze, internet etc. So why should these people bother? Also I think (not entirely sure) it's common knowledge that multiculturalism has failed at least on an economic scale. I think someone bothered to calculate the numbers for Norway oder Denmark somewhere? You would not be allowed to do that in Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that it was 'a bad idea' from the beginning. Ironically, many Asian countries have very strict immigration controls and are very homogeneous. I often wonder why the ire isn't directed toward their racist ways, also? /shrug The problem as you identified isn't multi-culturalism per se, but the Welfare State. If you observe many millions of poor people flooding into your countries and contributing little while taking much, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the cause and effect relationship that the natives or indigenous population won't generally take a strong liking to this sort of behavior. Open borders and State Welfare do not mix. I am an advocate for open borders, and no Welfare, which worked just fine for America for over a hundred years. Social Democrats are a pox - ruin, social strife, and chaos always follow in their path. The surest way to destroy a country is for the population to vote themselves the public treasury and their fellow neighbors property, and then in the same breath open the doors to the world for them to come in and enjoy in the pillaging. A successful, stable, and sustainable country it doth not make. Again funny how real world disagrees with you at every step.
|
On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Obviously it is not impossible to drift towards right ideology, even with the German education system. And maybe you got the wrong impression, it's not like the teacher is standing in front of the class and states "nazis are evil incarnate" or twisting facts or anything, it is more that you learn how the Nazis came to power, what their political intentions were, how they killed off any political opposition, what war crimes they committed and of course about the holocaust. Of course you also learn that they built a lot of infrastructure (e.g. the highway system), that they created jobs etc - but you also learn how, why and at what cost. You discuss this in class, and obviously most students will then have a devastating opinion of Nazis and their ideology. Now obviously you could argue that that creates peer pressure, but you get presented with facts, and do not get indoctrinated as some people here make it out to seem.
I actually can't fathom how anyone that has learned what has happened in that time would defend their ideology or say they weren't so bad. For example the population of the east european countries was classified as slavic people and thus "Untermenschen", in the mind of the Nazis people way less worth than germanic people. If they were allowed to live on, then only as servants to their "master race". I mean seriously, how could anyone feel something different than despise for the Nazis?
|
On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
|
On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense.
Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts.
If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters,
I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue.
Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth.
|
On November 15 2012 03:55 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Obviously it is not impossible to drift towards right ideology, even with the German education system. And maybe you got the wrong impression, it's not like the teacher is standing in front of the class and states "nazis are evil incarnate" or twisting facts or anything, it is more that you learn how the Nazis came to power, what their political intentions were, how they killed off any political opposition, what war crimes they committed and of course about the holocaust. Of course you also learn that they build a lot of infrastructure (e.g. the highway system), that they created jobs etc - but you also learn how, why and at what cost. You discuss this in class, and obviously most students will then have a devastating opinion of Nazis and their ideology. Now obviously you could argue that that creates peer pressure, but you get presented with facts, and do not get indoctrinated as some people here make it out to seem. I actually can't fathom how anyone that has learned what happened in that time would defend their ideology or say they weren't so bad. For example the population of the east european countries was classified as slavic people and thus "Untermenschen", in the mind of the Nazis people way less worth than germanic people. If they were allowed to live on, only as servants to their master race. I mean seriously, how could anyone feel something different than despise for the Nazis?
The last time someone mentioned history (as a subject of a school) in a room filled with postgraduate historians ( mostly university teachers and professors) everyone present had a good laugh. Most stuff teached there is plain wrong or an interpretation based on ideology. The problem is that most teachers (I know at least) are quite old, if you tell people stuff that historians came up with in the early 70s they are bound to be wrong or at least outdated on a lot of stuff. Ironically, while it is not uncommon to not (deliberatly) twist facts to make the kids hate a specific generation, it often happens. Most children don't have the mindset to understand how anyone can do that, concluding that they would never have acted that way (which is wrong). Also, there is a lot of asymmetry: the Jew-policy covers like 90% of the time between 1933 and 1945 and it always creates the impression that the German Empire indeed IS (or was) evil incarnate.
Bottom line: you don't need to twist facts, just leave 90% out, works equally fine.
|
On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough.
As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
|
On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism.
morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
|
|
|
|